NEWS: Democrats Put Right to Choose On the Table

Michael I can't decide which is more impressive; your unabashed self promotion demonstrated by frequent name dropping or your aversion for placing that same self indulged view of popularity at risk by actually taking a position and sticking with it.

It's not unusual for women's rights (reproductive rights are directly linked to the woman's movement) to fall beneath the tide of 'larger efforts' and 'more important things'. We are usually sold out for a win of some variety. National identity, race relations, class relations. This time it's a plain, simple 'We wanna win."

PsychicGoldfish,

My problem is that selling out women's rights doesn't buy them anything. They are trading for magic beans and they aren't going to get a beanstalk from it.

I'm kind of worried that they are more interested in George Soros' money than they are in women voters.

No one has yet responded to the fairly obvious observation that there are more than two candidates for the DNC chairmanship.

That is because there were more than 2 candidates for president but the numbers for all but the top 2 were laughable.

Meh.

[Edited on Dec 25, 2004 by AceTracer]

I've told Totten in the past I consider him blogging's Bill O'Reilly. Take that for what you like.

What does this have to do with George Soros, who if I'm not mistaken is pro-choice?

On a somewhat related note, it strikes me as amazingly hypocritical that you and the rest of the right are so fixated on Soros when your boy Richard Mellon Scaife has thrown a lot more money around and had a much more negative effect on the American political process than Soros ever has, and he's far from being the only one on the right doing such things.

Oh, and Patrick, we all know why this article was submitted, and it's not because you have a "problem" with the Dems "selling out women's rights." If you were that concerned with women's rights, you wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of an adminstration that wants to set women's rights back decades in this country.

You guys are doing the same thing that you've been doing since the late 1960's, trying to drive wedges between factions in the Democratic party. It's dirty, but it's worked so well for your side that I'm sure you'll continue doing it as long as it works. Just understand that there is a huge fault line in your ranks between the libertarians and fundamentalists, and pray to the angry misogynistic god of your bible-thumping base that we on the left never learn how to set it off.

My problem here is just this: if the Dems get wishy-washy on the issue of reproductive rights to pander to some so-called moral majority, then who will protect them? Certainly not the Republicans!! They need all the underprivleged fetuses they can get to fight their wars 19 years from now...

So if the Dems are going to abandon the basic principles they have adopted (basically those of moderate 'liberalism') to get their guy in office, I can't get behind that, to quote the Great William Shatner. We would end up with the republican party, and the party who wants to be winning-- like the republican party...

We need a third party. One that doesn't suck...

That's really scary I was thinking the same thing

I swear to fucking god, this is why I don't visit this board too often. I go insane. The democratic party has always made the mistake of compromising what it believes in to the point where it appears that they're so scared of being called liberals by their opponents that they will cheerfully abandon everything they believe in.

I may be talking out my ass, but I don't care really. Basically with the system that is in place the prospect of a third party doing any significant damage to either party is pretty improbable. I'll give a simple example: Imagine you live in a small town with two general stores, both competing for business using whatever methods they have at their disposal. You try to start a third store in town. Your store might likely have better prices, fresher produce, and hell probably even a loyal customer base at some point. This is all well and good, however once you start seriously dipping into the profits of the other stores they will retaliate with all the ammo they can to destroy you, or at very least subdue you to an acceptable level. This is of course considering you even get to that point. As a rule most people are reluctant to accept change and are easily manipulated. Either way the store is pretty much fucked.

Perhaps I am a bit cynical when it comes to our system of government. Hell, I don't really think the general store analogy was even necessary. I don't know. Selah...